James v. Harrington et al

Filing 24

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, The Court adopts in its entirety 23 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS, grants 18 MOTION for Leave to File filed by Julius James,but didmisses the claim against Sherry Benton. The Court denies as premature 21 MOTION to In form the Courts filed by Julius James and grants 22 MOTION to Stay Dispositive Motion Deadline. The Court directs the Clerk of Court to file Plaintiff's amended complaint and add defendants Pelker and Quandt in place of John Doe defendants and serve these defendants in accordance with the merits review order (doc.8) Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 1/21/2015. (jdh, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JULIUS JAMES, R19702,
Plaintiff,
vs.
RICHARD HARRINGTON, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 14-cv-00463-JPG-PMF

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the court on the Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) (Doc. 23) of
Magistrate Judge Philip M. Frazier with regard to Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File an Amended
Complaint (Doc. 18). The Plaintiff did not file any objections to the R & R; however, he filed a Motion
to Inform the Courts (Doc. 21). The Motion to Inform the Courts does not contain any objections to the R
& R, but appears to see a modification to the prayer for relief. The Court also notes that Defendants filed
a Motion to Stay Dispositive Motion Deadline (Doc. 22) requesting 28 days after the ruling on Plaintiff's
Motion for Leave to Amend for dispositive motions on the issue of exhaustion of administrative
remedies.
The Court may accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations of
the magistrate judge in a report and recommendation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). The Court must review de
novo the portions of the report to which objections are made. The Court has discretion to conduct a new
hearing and may consider the record before the magistrate judge anew or receive any further evidence
deemed necessary. Id. “If no objection or only partial objection is made, the district court judge reviews
those unobjected portions for clear error.” Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999).
The Court has received no objection to the Report and Recommendation.

The Court has

reviewed the entire file and finds that the R & R is not clearly erroneous. Accordingly, the Court hereby
ADOPTS the Report in its entirety (Doc. 23) and GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File an

Amended Complaint (Doc. 18); however, the claim against Sherry Benton for alleged denial of access to
the courts is DISMISSED without prejudice as insufficient to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted for failing to show actual injury.
Plaintiff's Motion to Inform the Courts (Doc. 21) states that he filed a Motion to Amend his
Complaint and that the Motion was pending. The Motion then goes on and appears to request a
modification of a prayer for relief, "If in the future damages is an issue.." As such, the Motion is
DENIED as premature. The Plaintiff should refile when, or if, damages become an issue."
Defendants' Motion to Stay Dispositive Motion Deadline (Doc. 22) is GRANTED and the
deadline for dispositive motions on the issue of exhaustion of administrative remedies is extended to
February 27, 2015.
Based on the above, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to file Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and
add defendants PELKER and QUANDT in place of the John Doe defendants on the docket sheet and
serve these defendants in accordance with the merits review order (Doc. 8).

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: 1/21/2015
s/J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
DISTRICT JUDGE